What is the Sagnac effect? It is the result of an experiment that showed the earth to be in some type of movement against another substance. The “movement” is termed “rotation” and the substance is some aether-type medium that scientists had discarded when Einstein developed his Relativity in 1905. (Thus, we can see why Einstein would have ignored Sagnac’s results). But although Einstein neglected its results, other scientists did not, including the author of the article in Physics Today (May 2002). How does the author account for the Sagnac effect? By using the same Relativistic “transformations” that he told us he wasn’t going to use in a previous paragraph! This is what he writes:

The Sagnac effect also occurs if an atomic clock is moved slowly from one reference station on the ground to another...Observers at rest on the ground, seeing these same asymmetric effects, attribute them instead to gravitomagnetic effects – that is to say, the warping of space-time due to spacetime terms in the general-relativistic metric tensor... (Ibid., p. 44).

Clear as mud, right? This is the kind of ‘begging the question’ mumbo-jumbo you see often in theoretical physics of the Relativity variety. What he just said, in case you missed it is, although Relativity cannot account for the Sagnac effect, we are still going to attribute the discrepancies in GPS calculations to Relativistic effects, namely, the warping of “spacetime due to spacetime terms in the general-relativistic metric tensor.” You see, he is locked into a system that doesn’t give him the answers he needs, but since he doesn’t want to admit that they could all be answered by assuming a stationary earth and a revolving aether-type medium, then he will continue to push Relativity as the answer; and all his readers will bob their heads up and down and confirm his gospel, as they have done since 1905.

The author more or less admits the effects of these unanswered questions when in one of his final paragraphs he writes: “Historically, there has been much confusion about properly accounting for relativistic effects. And it is almost impossible to discover how different manufacturers go about it!”

Ah, yes, and now we can see why there is so much confusion, because no one knows what the heck they are doing! They know their Relativity equations are just fudge factors to explain the things they simply cannot understand under the scenario of a moving earth. Yet they have the audacity to borrow non-moving or “Earth-fixed” equations in order to give the appearance that an Earth in Relativity works! Now you wonder why I’m on the warpath with Geocentricity?

One more thing before I leave this topic. The difference between the Geocentric and Heliocentric concept is important, for one of the major flaws in modern heliocentric theory is the failure to account for the effect of the stars on all the motions we see. Modern science has virtually dismissed the effect of forces from the stars, and instead has based its solar cosmology almost entirely on the so-called “centrifugal effects” created by the planets in motion. But this is inevitable, since once you posit that the stars are “fixed” (as modern cosmology does) then the only thing you have left to determine why solar and terrestrial objects move in the rotational paths they do is by the supposed centrifugal effect. And thus, all of the modern heliocentric physics seeking to understand rotational motion is based on a fictitious force, which is not very comforting for anyone wishing to have solid answers for why things work the way they do.

Proof lacking for rotation & orbiting

AC

Assume that the Earth does not rotate about its own axis. (This is the assertion to be disproved.) Since the Earth does not rotate about its own axis, and since we see the heavenly bodies traversing the sky each night, we therefore conclude that the heavenly bodies rotate about the earth.

Since we see the heavenly bodies in roughly the same positions from night to night (e.g. at 10 PM Jupiter is at about the same place as it was last night at 10 PM.) we therefore conclude that the heavenly bodies rotate about the Earth with a period of roughly twenty-four hours. (Here – in order to keep the math simple – we assume a circular orbit for the heavenly bodies and a period of exactly twenty-four hours.) Since any given heavenly body traverses a circle about the Earth in twenty-four hours, and since the circumference of that circle is 2*pi*r (r being the distance from Earth to the body) the velocity of the body will be (2*pi*r)/(24 hours). It can be shown (You’ll trust me on the math, I hope. I’ll submit it if you insist.) that any body orbiting the Earth at a distance of more than 4.125x10^12 metres (a couple AU less than the distance between here & Neptune) must be travelling at more than 3.0x10^8 metres per second.

Since Neptune & the further bodies can be shown to be traveling at more than 3.0x10^8 metres per second, and since 3.0x10^8 metres per second is the speed of light in a vacuum, and since no material body may travel at or above the speed of light in a vacuum we are faced with an absurdity. And we can therefore conclude that our initial assertion is false.

Since we have shown it to be false that the Earth does not rotate about its own axis, we can infer that it does.

Much to my horror I have discovered that I have left a clarifying point out of my proof; i.e. my proof – at least the way I’ve worded it – applies only to those heavenly bodies in the Zodiac. Those would be the sun, the planets, with the exception of Pluto, and the fixed stars in the Zodiac. The same argument could be applied to the other stars in the sky, but the math would be different, so I won’t include them here.

GEO

What you postulate as proof of a rotating and revolving earth does not prove it at all. First, you assume a few things as proven which have not in fact been proven. One is your assumption that the speed of light (I assume in a vacuum) is constant, either here or anywhere else in the universe.

Second, you assume that the planets (and in your second letter, the stars) themselves travel at or beyond the conventional speed of light in order to complete their journey. Let me explain both of these issues by starting with a little history of physics.

In 1887, Michelson and Morley did an experiment to detect any difference in the speed of light between north-south travel and east-west travel. A difference in speed was expected because they assumed that the Earth was orbiting the Sun in a stationary aether. From our perspective on Earth, the aether would blow past us like a wind in an east-west direction. Michelson and Morley reasoned that we should notice changes in the speed of light in east-west travel, but fixed speed in north-south travel. The experiment failed to measure any difference in speed, no matter when and where they tried it. Scientists were baffled.

Rather than admitting the possibility that the earth was stationary with respect to the aether, scientists dispensed with aether and claimed that the speed of light was constant. In fact, the speed of light was claimed to be the only constant in the universe, whereas mass, length, distance, time, and anything else became relative. This became know as the Relativity theory. But all the Michelson-Morley experiment showed was that aether wind was either too small to measure or was non-existent. Michelson and Morley, however, demonstrated nothing about the constancy of the speed of light through space.

Added to this is the experiment performed by Georges Sagnac. A writer for Physics Today writes:

“One of the most confusing relativistic effects – the Sagnac effect – appears in rotating reference frames. (See Physics Today, October 1981, page 20) … Observers in the non-rotating ECI inertial frame would not see a Sagnac effect. Instead, they would see that receivers are moving while a signal is propagating ... Correcting for the Sagnac effect in the Earth-fixed frame is equivalent to correcting for such receiver motion in the ECI frame...”

Yes, the author is right. It is “confusing.” Unfortunately for him, the reason it is “confusing” is that Relativity has never explained the Sagnac effect, found by Georges Sagnac in 1913, nor its follow-up experimental verification performed by Michelson-Gale-Pearson in 1925. In fact, according to Dean Turner in The Einstein Myth and the Ives Papers, he writes:

I pause to note that one may scan Einstein’s writings in vain to find mention of the Sagnac or Michelson-Gale experiments. The same can be said of general physics textbooks and of the 1971 McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology... Such an oversight in these distinguished encyclopedias constitutes a stinging indictment of professional scientific reporting. (p. 44).

Why were they not mentioned in Einstein’s writings? Simple. Because they give experimental evidence for the falsity of Relativity theory. Einstein not only did this with Sagnac and Michelson-Gale, he also did it with Joos, Ives, Miller, Kennedy-Thorndike, and many other scientists who questioned or rejected his theory based on the results of their verified experiments.

What is the Sagnac effect? It is the result of an experiment that showed the earth to be in some type of movement against another substance. The “movement” is termed “rotation” and the substance is some aether-type medium that scientists had discarded when Einstein developed his Relativity in 1905. (Thus, we can see why Einstein would have ignored Sagnac’s results). But although Einstein neglected its results, other scientists did not, including the author of the article in Physics Today (May 2002).

The Michelson-Gale experiment of 1925 [A. A. Michelson and H. Gale, “The effect of the Earth’s Rotation on the Velocity of Light,” The Astrophysical Journal, Vol LXI, No. 3, April 1925, pp. 137-145] measured a difference in the speed of light at two different latitudes. He concluded that the aether-wind speed changed with latitude due to the rotation of the Earth in a stationary aether. (This is because the radius of rotation decreases with increasing latitude). This experiment disproves the constancy of the speed of light assumption and provides adequate evidence for the existence of the aether, just as Georges Sagnac found. Dalton Miller did even more comprehensive studies to confirm these results. There is quite a collection of letters between Einstein and Miller in which the former is trying to persuade the latter not to put credit in the results.

Heliocentrists might be tempted to say that Michelson-Gale provides “proof” of the rotation of the Earth, but that would be presumptuous. The only thing Michelson-Gale provided for us is that either the Earth is moving with respect to an aether, or the aether is moving against a stationary Earth.

Not only did Sagnac and Michelson-Gale show the possibility of aether, but an experiment performed by Carl Anderson in 1932 showed another anomaly to Relativity theory. Relativity theory postulated that space was a vacuum – nothing existed between the heavenly bodies. But Carl Anderson showed that a 1.02 million electron volt charge distributed anywhere in space produced a free positron and electron. When the 1.02 Mev was reapplied, the positron and electron disappeared. Einstein’s explanation of this phenomenon was that matter was created and then annihilated. (This may have been where today’s scientists postulate that the universe began from the singularity [“nothingness”] of the Big Bang). Rather than reason that space was filled with positron-electron pairs, in order to save his Relativity theory, Einstein maintained that matter was created and destroyed.

So how could the planets and stars revolve around the Earth each day if the Earth is fixed in space? One of the more cogent explanations is that the planets, sun and stars themselves are not moving; rather, they are all embedded in a medium that itself rotates once every 24 hours. This medium would contain the so-called aether or even the Anderson positron-electron pairs, and as some rightly hold, particles in the Planck dimensions. In fact, Hans Thirring, famous for the Lense-Thirring effect, found that for a rotating shell of matter, the interior field of the shell is similar to the field in a rotating system of coordinates, leading to gravitational forces similar to the centrifugal and Coriolis effects in the Heliocentric system.

The constitution of the rotating medium would be that coincident with the Planck dimensions found in black holes. Modern science is familiar with such mediums. For example, in The Very Early Universe (Gibbons, et al, 1983) astrophysicist Markov defines the particle he calls the “maximon,” which possesses the 10 to the 94th grams per cubic centimeter associated with Planck dimensions.

Also noteworthy in this respect is the work of Dr. Robert Moon, Chicago University physicist, who in his article “Space Must Be Quantized,” shows that the prevailing theory that space is a vacuum is not supported by the evidence. The reason? Because space has an impedance of at least 376 ohms, something not predicted or accounted for in conventional science, but coincident with the spatial mediums of Geocentric understanding. Princeton’s John Wheeler is credited with being the first to describe what is now called “spacetime foam.” This is Wheeler’s theory that space is occupied by ultra-dense particles. Stephen Hawking has postulated something similar. Both Wheeler’s and Hawking’s “foam” reasons that the particles are at Planck dimensions. Thus, this is not something confined only to Geocentric scientists. In an article by J. P. Vigier, “De Broglie Waves on Dirac Aether” in 1980, he writes: “Since Dirac’s pioneer work it has been known that Einstein’s relativity theory (and Michelson’s experiment) are perfectly compatible with an underlying relativistic stochastic [read aether] model.”

In fact, the 3 degree Kelvin radiation discovered by Pensias and Wilson is not the remnants of the Big Bang at all, but is more likely the subatomic vibration inherent in this Dirac aether or Wheeler-Hawking “foam.”

Moreover, Vigier’s work, along with colleague Petroni, published “Causal Superluminal Interpretation of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox” in Physical Review Letters in 1981. He reports the existence of faster-than-light interactions between an atomic beam of calcium and krypton ion laser, and shows that these are best explained by the stochastic model of space (i.e., aether) rather than the vacuum of conventional physics. There are many other scientists and experiments that could be mentioned to support these findings. Just recently (2001), Princeton scientists showed that a pulse of laser light traveled through cesium vapor at 310 times the distance it traveled in a vacuum.

To rotate this spherical body within 24 hours, we can suppose that there is a massive shell at the outer limits providing sufficient gravity to pull the Sun and the stars in their orbits. The aether, like water in a spinning bucket, would rotate along with the universe. Hence, to those inside the shell, there would be no way to measure the rotation; the entire frame of reference would be pulled around by the rotating shell. This concept is not a novelty. It is known in conventional physics as “frame pulling” or “frame dragging,” and was discovered by Einstein, Lense and Thirring, and remains an area of active research. A rotating inertial frame of reference would abide by Kepler’s laws of planetary motion, as well as explain the rotating Foucault pendulum, centrifugal and Coriolis forces.

In fact, a rotating universe would explain something that conventional science cannot explain. It is known by scientists that, in order to account for the so-called expanding universe theory, sufficient matter is needed. But scientists have found only 1% of the matter needed. To compensate for this, Einstein (again to save Relativity theory) created his “Cosmological Constant” – a fudge factor to allow the universe to keep expanding. Today scientists account for the missing matter by referring to it as Dark Matter, but they haven’t found it yet. I guess it must really be “dark.” :) The concept of a rotating universe deals quite nicely with this issue. The less mass the better. And the mass that is present does not collapse in on itself because the centrifugal force (which is a real force in a Geocentric model) causes the heavenly bodies to move outward in just the right balance to compensate for the pull of gravity inward. Hence the mass of the universe (the “1%” conventional science has found) and the spin of the universe (24 hour cycle) is enough to achieve equilibrium.

As for faster-than-light action, the rotating universe would have stars traveling in excess of the speed of light, since with respect to the rotating aether, the stars are not moving and there is no difficulty of exceeding the local speed of light.

Moreover, in 1955, the astronomer Van de Hulst writes: “In 1930, astronomers discovered with some shock that as the light of stars passes through certain regions of interstellar space it is dimmed and scattered in various directions... If there was indeed an interstellar haze which dimmed the light of distant stars or made them altogether invisible, then many of their calculations of star distances were wrong. Further studies proved that the fear was justified. Starlight passing through the crowded regions of our galaxy loses roughly half its energy by absorption and scattering in every two thousand light years of travel. As a result, even with our most powerful telescopes, we cannot see the center of our galaxy...Beyond about six thousand light years from our observing station most or our studies of the galaxy are literally lost in the fog.” In 1981, the astronomer Baugher wrote: “Much of the galaxy is...hidden from our view, making the study of its structure quite difficult.” There are many other statements like these from astronomers. I think it is also noteworthy to point out that conventional physics and astronomy also have problems with the speed of light. For example, Hubble’s Constant was formulated (H = 100 km/s/mega-parsec) based on the proportionality of the red-shift to the distance of the star. The problem, of course, came in when telescopes were able to see beyond 50 giga-parsecs, which would require the galaxies to be receding at many times the speed of light. Then when telescopes were able to see to 500 gigaparsecs, this means that the galaxies would have to be receding at hundreds of times the speed of light. Thus, something is obviously wrong with the whole concept. This evidence certainly doesn’t lend itself to making the conventional wisdom of Heliocentrism sacrosanct by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, things work much better in the Geocentric model.

End of

Status of Adam Joseph

Berj Manoushagian

All motion is relative.

Any insistence on absolute motion is evidence that the nature of motion has not been understood.

The fact is that we do not even know what the word 'motion' means except in relative terms.

Why are we looking for absolutes in a universe that is nothing but relative in its nature?

In the future please be kind to your readers when posting such a long and technical post to remove unnecessary line returns and add appropriate spaces between paragraphs.

You cannot expect your post to be read when you are torturing your readers.

[The excerpt looked less nice on FB, with too many line breaks.]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"All motion is relative."

Say you.

"Any insistence on absolute motion is evidence that the nature of motion has not been understood."

Say you.

"The fact is that we do not even know what the word 'motion' means except in relative terms."

In terms that are indeed relative, but refer to absolutes like place and time.

"Why are we looking for absolutes in a universe that is nothing but relative in its nature?"

That is a very vast assessment of the universe. In fact, unless you state "relative to the true absolute God" even false.

...

"In the future please be kind to your readers when posting such a long and technical post to remove unnecessary line returns and add appropriate spaces between paragraphs. ... You cannot expect your post to be read when you are torturing your readers."

Adam Joseph, in order to edit, you can first click edit, of course, then click caps+return at same time (since "return" only gives "end of edit" instead).

Meanwhile, I will copy onto a notepad, and think that Berj could have done so too.

Berj Manoushagian

[first gives three quotes with sources like AUTHORITY on philosophy.]

Quote I

- "Our primitive notion may have been that to know absolutely where we are, and in what direction we are going, are essential elements of our knowledge as conscious beings.

But this notion, though undoubtedly held by many wise men in ancient times, has been gradually dispelled from the minds of students of physics.

There are no landmarks in space; one portion of space is exactly like every other portion, so that we cannot tell where we are. We are, as it were, on an unruffled sea, without stars, compass, soundings, wind, or tide, and we cannot tell in what direction we are going. We have no log which we can cast out to take a dead reckoning by; we may compute our rate of motion with respect to the neighbouring bodies, but we do not know how these bodies may be moving in space."

Source

James Clerk Maxwell; (1831-1879); Matter and Motion; 1877/1920; p81

Quote II

"… relative to the earth the stars are in motion. We therefore need to know first of all what is meant by ‘real motion’… it turns out that we cannot quite say what is meant by it… the question whether the earth is really moving but not the stars or the other way around does not make any sense…"

The reason is that we do not know what motion is. We have no concept of motion. We have nothing clearly in mind when we use the word. We simply do not know what we are talking about.

Perhaps motion, and science along with it, is just nonsense."

Source

Gordon Clark; (1902-1985);
The Philosophy of Science and Belief in God; 1966; p19

Berj Manoushagian

[in his own words again]

If you try to philosophize about science without knowing anything about the philosophy of science, you are going to fail.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The problem is that the philosophy of science is wrong, and you have JUST right now shown how James Clerk Maxwell, Hans Hahn and Gordon Clark bungle it, due to a false philosophy, which is largely due to Heliocentrism or rather Acentrism.

The quotes are not completely useless.

If we accept Geocentrism, which makes sense since it is a prima facie view of the universe, as long as this is not positively disproven, there is indeed a landmark, and we are standing on it (in my case in front of the computer, sitting).

Berj Manoushagian

Hans-Georg, when you insist on 'centrism' you make yourself less and less relevant.

To be able to tell where the center of a three-dimensional object is, we need to know the shape of that object.

No one knows the shape of the universe. We do not even know if 'shape' has any meaning when applied to the universe.

You have dismissed philosophy as useless, but you have not given a reason in support of your view. You need to study philosophy of science, because that is what you are trying to tackle, but you do not realize it.

[I have not dismissed "philosophy" as useless, but "the philosophy of science". One philosophy among many, and not the best one.]

GC can be used as a working model, but when you insist that it is the only correct view and that HC is somehow false, you have shown that you do not understand the nature of motion.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

First off, I don't care about your ideas about how to be relevant. Next, some argumental points:

"To be able to tell where the center of a three-dimensional object is, we need to know the shape of that object."

With Geocentrism, Universe needs to be a globe, whether flattened or drawn out towards poles of heaven. At least it must look that way in the rotation, whether a still would make it a globe or not.

The actual point of "Geocentrism" is not "knowing where the centre of the universe is", but simply to take what looks like being still as still, what looks like moving as moving.

"No one knows the shape of the universe. We do not even know if 'shape' has any meaning when applied to the universe."

That is what you conclude as an atheistic Acentric.

"GC can be used as a working model, but when you insist that it is the only correct view and that HC is somehow false, you have shown that you do not understand the nature of motion."

Or that I consider your understanding as a false one, which I refuse to share however well I should ever understand it.

You promote a site which says this, right?

// 1- The Triumvirate of human wisdom has been found wanting:

a- There is no truth in Mathematics
b- There is no truth in Science
c- There is no truth in Logic //

False on all three counts and Kantian heresy (or errors or apostasy or whatever the canonical qualification), and probably also directly condemned as heresy in Vatican Council of 1869 / 1870.

Berj Manoushagian

"With Geocentrism, Universe needs to be a globe, "

This says it all Hans-Georg.

Your cosmology is based on wishful thinking.

You do nothing but dismiss valid criticism, because you have nothing in support of your fantasy.

"condemned as heresy in Vatican Council of 1869 / 1870."

That is your source of certainty???

Are you kidding me??

You need to get a basic philosophy book and start at the beginning.

You are wasting your time and efforts on a useless topic.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Berj Manoushagian "You do nothing but dismiss valid criticism, because you have nothing in support of your fantasy."

Except of course the universal testimony of human senses, with very few exceptions that were sent into space.

You have done nothing to show your criticism in any way "valid".

"That is your source of certainty???"

I am a Catholic. Not a Pagan. Not a Jew. Not a Heretic.

"You need to get a basic philosophy book and start at the beginning."

If you mean Kant or Descartes, I consider their philosophy deeply flawed, especially Kant.

If you mean schoolbooks, they owe way too much to Kant and Descartes, and not nearly enough to St Thomas Aquinas.

The latter COULD have been sf, sth, sch, and English/German sch > sh could go via partial satemisation of ach-laut to ich-laut.

It could also have been simply, sp, st, sk.

Later

Tested what would happen to a word like "babbel".

Thot bablom / Tha babla ...

Tod vavlom / ta vavla.

SIE keeps nt pl or turns it into feminine:

Greek :

paphla as in Paphl-agon son of Phineus and his descendants Paphlagonians, probably meaning "speaking an uncomprehensible really foreign language".

Latin :

fabula.

Germanic keeps singular.

"Babble".

Satemisation ...

if original for satem/sto etc involved an ach-laut which satemised to ich-laut, so much easier to understand why no language has an affricate. Ç and SH usually go less well as affricates than TH, KH and F as plosives.

For Celtic,

having "sp" as originally "sf" is of course a boon, since "sf" tends to either "sp" or - Celtic solution - "sw".

For Farsi,

having sp, st, sk as original sf, sth, skh is not bad.

For Old Irish,

only initials are doing the SIE mutation of (f), th, kh to (p), t, k.

[SIE - South Indo European, here used for non-Germanic which is other division than in previous, so change SIE to non-Germanic, since Celtic and Old Irish are NIE.]

If the older pronunciation was the Germanic one (or as Germanic as one can be pr e-Verner and pre-vowel shifts), then we can also relate to:

Greek losing final -th and making final -nth > -n;

-onthi > -onsi > -ousi outside Doric (BUT there would be a chronological problem if Mycenean Greek as per Linear B had -oti and distinguished th from t)

Greek also losing final -t (which became -d in Latin), since final dentals had so much less rendering after loss of final -th.

-nth- (not as in the other -nth- of non-IE origin, which might earlier have been -ndh-) becoming -nt- in forms of participle, which might also make the chain above a partial push chain rather than drag chain.

Note * : if earliest Paphlagonian lang was Kaskian, one can relate to IE speakers saying sth like "babla akonthi". And since Venetians are Paphlagonians, one can still, in another sense, say "fabulas agunt".

In this vein, "sagum" could go back to a PIE (=Germanic pre-Verner or so) *sakom - which could be an earlier loan of the same word which was later borrowed from Semitic (I think, confer "Sackcloth (Hebrew שַׂק saḳ) is a term originally denoting a coarsely woven fabric, usually made of goat's hair.") as (as I recall) "saccus".

Nelson Goering

Can I ask what the point of this would be? Even if we can notate the necessary sound changes, it doesn't seem very likely that we'd have shifts of (for instance) *t > *d and then *þ > *t in basically every branch _but_ Germanic.

So some branches do keep some of the þ rather than make t. (Do you have a t-pot ready, if ever I visit you? The pun made me t-thirsty!).

Hittite seems to scramble t and d into t.

Phrygian seems to be basically as Germanic.

In other words, euphony.

As for statistic likelihood, what if Germanic is the remaining non-branched version of PIE?

If you count on a full Swadesh list by computer, extant Germanic langs are a sister branch to Gothic, and these together a sister branch to PIE (as per usual reconstruction, no doubt) before all of this is attached to other branches.

However the 30/40 word extract from Swadesh list (can't recall the Russian's name) gave another result.

Update

I meant the Swadesh Yakhontov list. It gave another result. It was the complete Swadesh which made extant Germanic and Gothic sisters and close cognates to PIE which together were a further off cognate with other IE langs - the comparisons had been done by computer.

I propose that "galva" and "glava" would be cognates of Macedonian *gebale or *gabala (confer Bilippos = Philippos).

Gabala > Gabla > Gavla > Galva (Lithuanian) > Glava (OCS)

That would be at least some more unity of words for head than otherwise in IE. Note that "head" and "hand" are two of the concepts lacking common words, wereas "father" can be considered a close to common word, despite exceptions.

Andrew Jarrette

The of galva and glava is from PIE *w (cf. English callow). It never arises from *bh or vice versa. So galva and glava cannot be cognates of Macedonian *gebale or *gabala. Also PIE *gh in *ghebh-/ *ghH1bh- while PIE *g in *gal-. Germanic *gebaną "give" is held by some to be from the *ghebh- root (if its root vowel was *e) with a different grade of vowel and a different semantic evolution from the other IE languages with reflexes of this root (though all having to do with motion or state of the hand).

Hans-Georg Lundahl

As far as I know:

bh and b coincide in Balto-Slavic

they usually become b, but in some cases v, like after vowels.

The rest of your answer presumes that BECAUSE there is at present a certain doctrine about how the original sounds were and how these developed, THEREFORE this doctrine is absolute truth.

As for callow, calvus - these have other meanings than galva, glava. Kephalé has same meaning.

So, if there is any chance of galva and glava being related to kephalé via NIE treatment of (present reconstruction) *gh and *bh, I find it better to favour that chance.

If you want to argue why v would always be from *w, do.

Andrew Jarrette

One thing I presumed from the OP is that Germanic *kalw- is a native Germanic word cognate to galva and glava, because in the OP it is listed as cognate to them. In fact it may just be a borrowing from Latin calvus, which, according to the most widely believed doctrine, cannot be related to galva and glava because it has a c- rather than a g-. As to its meaning, "callow" in English originally meant "bald" (thus the connection to "head"), only later did it mean "lacking feathers" and then "young, inexperienced". In any case you are the one who linked English "callow" to galva and glava in the OP.

My answer presumes that what I've read in historical linguistics is true, yes, but I find there is a great deal of agreement among scholars about the features I've mentioned.

I've never heard of IE b or bh becoming v in Balto-Slavic. Maybe you could provide some unambiguous examples.

What is NIE? Non-Indo-European? If some non-Indo-European language borrowed *ghebh- as in kephale and then Balto-Slavic in turn borrowed it from the non-Indo-European language, then yes glava and galva would be cognates of kephale. It's possible, I concede, but 'head' is such a b asic word that I have my doubts that it would be borrowed from non-Indo-European. But certainly possible.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"One thing I presumed from the OP is that Germanic *kalw- is a native Germanic word cognate to galva and glava, because in the OP it is listed as cognate to them."

I was copying the info from wiktionary, as given, before putting it into doubt....Voir plus

[A comment not expanded while I was copying. The Seymore syndrome. But in it I explained that NIE = North Indo European. Opposite would be SIE, South Indo European. A division cutting across the Centum West (+ extreme East) and Satem East/Central.]

Andrew Jarrette

Sorry, I guess I missed or forgot the part of your OP that mentioned that 'head' and 'hand' lack common words in IE. I also missed or forgot that your first listing of cognates from IE gal- was taken from Wiktionary, not provided by you. So I'm sorry about those things.

But I still have never heard of PIE *bh becoming v anywhere in Balto-Slavic, you'd have to provide examples.

The fact that 'head' is represented by a variety of unconnected words throughout IE does lend more support to your idea that it might be borrowed from Macedonian. Maybe IE linguists with more knowledge than I will respond to this post and weigh in on the matter.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"But I still have never heard of PIE *bh becoming v anywhere in Balto-Slavic, you'd have to provide examples."

kephalé being related would be my best example

"The fact that 'head' is represented by a variety of unconnected words throughout IE does lend more support to your idea that it might be borrowed from Macedonian."

I never said "borrowed from" Macedonian. I said that the Macedonian form has a NIE (North Indo-European) consonantism, and would have, for kephalé/kaphalà something like *gebale or more likely *gabala.

And so would ANY NIE lang at start sharing the kephalé gloss.

That was my point about Baltoslavic being, like Macedonian, NIE.

Andrew Jarrette

Oh OK sorry. My only objection to your theory is the *bh > v in Balto-Slavic part. I have never come across that anywhere in my readings of IE linguistics. Of course I haven't read everything but I've read a fair deal, and that sound change has never been mentioned AFAIK.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Well, either I recall Brugmann wrong or theories changed since his day and you are better updated.

To me, no, it is not Celtic which derives from Latin, but other way round.

This would however still limit the etymology to three contiguous branches : Celtic, Italic and Greek.

Btw, long first i in INSULA is automatic, always before N+S or M+F. (A Roman would pronounce Humphrey like a Frenchman, with a very long UM).

Alan G James

Celtic and Latin derive this word and a great deal else from a common ancestor.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Now THAT is a somewhat risky statement. In order for that to stand, how about showing a non-Celtic and non-Italic word related to these?

German "Insel" doesn't count, since a Latin word. A loan. The real German word for it is "Au" though that refers to land islands inland - like hills between valleys or perhaps rather pastures between forests.

Guto Rhys

How are these not ad hoc rules invented to support an assumption?

Where are the analogies?

+Hans-Georg Lundahl

How are these contiguous? When?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Italic and Celtic are supposed to have been contiguous about 1000BC, around Alps.

Some dialects of Greek had been there too (i e Doric).

Worst problem : loss of vowel at start of neesos - since Greek is not famous for loosing vowels (orego, erythros ....).

Apart from that, no real problems even on standard theories.

The long e in nesos becomes i in Celtic.

* inisos.

Loss of ending in Celtic reflexes thereof. Originally long i shortened.

Latin inisula > insula = perfectly regular, and the addition of a diminutive ending (ul) and chenge of ending in an anyway feminine (he nesos) noun, after diminutive, really pose no problems.

Guto Rhys

+Hans-Georg Lundahl

Supposed by who?

What is the evidence for this assertion? Given that Lepontic is only attested some 400 years later than your date how can this be argued?

What is the evidence that Doric was spoken in the Alpine region c.1000 BCE?

Where are the references for members to investigate themselves?

You seem to imply that the Celtic word was adopted from Greek. How so?

Remember that PrClt /i:/ gives Brittonic /i:/ hence the Welsh word would be **ynis not the attested 'ynys'.

How is this shortening not an ad hoc rule?

+Hans-Georg Lundahl

Remember also that /-s-/ would not be preserved in Brittonic meaning that the protoform must be /-ss-/ or /-st-/.

+Hans-Georg Lundahl

I'm no specialist in Italic historical phonology but can you clarify why a long, stressed vowel would, in Latin, be syncopated:

*inīsula > insula

+Hans-Georg Lundahl

eDIL notes the protoform as (primarily) an ī-stem feminine.

This conflicts with your reconstructed 'inisos'.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

+Guto Rhys"Remember that PrClt /i:/ gives Brittonic /i:/ hence the Welsh word would be **ynis not the attested 'ynys'."

"the protoform as (primarily) an ī-stem feminine. This conflicts with your reconstructed 'inisos'."

The -os is anyway only there because of the Greek hee neesos. Without Greek, *inisiis works just fine.

Here, however, one might argue either, only thing impossible is **inisaa, since that would have heightened the vowels.

[I meant lowered. Sorry.]

Guto Rhys

+Hans-Georg LundahlIf one is not following attested sound-changes then one is simply inventing ad hoc rules to suit one's hypotheses.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The sound changes per se are not attested, unless the proto-language is, as for Latin. Sound correspondences are, and they are not totally reducible to the rules for sound changes.

Guto Rhys

+Hans-Georg LundahlBut that has not been proposed, for this reason.

[Unclear what he meant with "that".]

+Hans-Georg Lundahl

Ok.

Established sound-changes.

[Established as opposed to directly attested, thank you!]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

With some probability established ones, yes.

[As opposed to with absolute certainty established ones.]

So, even though including neesos, as I suppose earlier (pre-Junggrammarian, or even pre-Grimmian) philologists did, would imply irregularity of sound change, which is possible one can be content with this:

inisiis > Inis, Ynys

inisiis + ula > insula.

That said, I'll not say excluding neesos is necessary.

As for questions about when Italic and Celtic were contiguous in Alps, see fact archaeologists and IE-anists consider Italics invaded Italy ... checking wiki:

"The first Italic tribes, the Latino-Falisci (or "Latino-Veneti", if the membership of the ancient Veneti is also accepted), entered Italy across the eastern Alpine passes into the plain of the Po River about 1200 BC. Later, they crossed the Apennine Mountains and eventually occupied the region of Latium, which included the area of Rome. Before 1000 BC, the Osco-Umbrians followed, which later divided into various groups and gradually moved to central and southern Italy."

As for fact of Dorics Greeks coming later than Mycenean ones ....

"Greek legend asserts that the Dorians took possession of the Peloponnesus in an event called the Return of the Heracleidae (Ancient Greek: Ἐπιστροφὴ τῶν Ἡρακλειδῶν). Classical scholars saw in the legend a possibly real event they termed the Dorian invasion. The meaning of the concept has changed several times, as historians, philologists and archaeologists used it in attempts to explain the cultural discontinuities expressed in the data of their fields. The pattern of arrival of Dorian culture on certain islands in the Mediterranean, such as Crete, is also not well understood. The Dorians colonised a number of sites on Crete such as Lato. Despite nearly 200 years of investigation, the historicity of a mass migration of Dorians into Greece has never been established, and the origin of the Dorians remains unknown. Some have linked them or their victims with the emergence of the equally mysterious Sea Peoples. The meaning of the phrase "Dorian invasion" as an explanation for the cultural break after the Mycenaean period has become to some degree amorphous. Investigations into it have served mainly to rule out various speculations, though the possibility of a real Dorian invasion remains open."

Thought that origin in Alps was more commonly held than it was then ...

Guto Rhys

+Hans-Georg LundahlA good part of the sound changes discussed are attested - in the continuum between Lepontic (etc) to the well-attested Early Medieval languages.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

In this case you are using Lepontic as standin for pre- and proto-British?

Guto Rhys

+Hans-Georg LundahlHow do you account for the long initial vowel in Latin 'īnsula'?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

automatic before ns

Guto Rhys

+Hans-Georg LundahlNo. "etc" was noted so as not to have to note later-attested Celtic languages, the classification of which remains debated.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I meant "Lepontic etc" as standin for contemporary but to us inaccessible language state in Britain.

[I obviously meant what could be expressed by adding "or whereever ancestors of the Brits were living", which is why my first formulation was not "in Britain", but "in pre- or proto-British"]

Guto Rhys

+Hans-Georg LundahlSo what you are proposing is

*inis- > *inisula (suffixation)

In Classical Latin the stress would be on the antepenult:

*i'nisula

Would such a syncope be regular?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I consider the syncopisation to have taken place before the antepenult rule and while the rule was (as in Czech and Scots Gaelic) initial accent.

Guto Rhys

+Hans-Georg Lundahl We cannot prove that Celtic was spoken in Britain in 600 BCE. [See above.] But the issue of where it was spoken is not particularly relevant to this discussion. [Indeed.]

The issue is simply that Lepontic is the earliest attested Celtic language (Tartessian is debated) and that there is a continuum in attestation of Celtic (albeit patchy) until today.

+Hans-Georg Lundahl

When did the antepenultimate rule become operational in Latin and can you provide some scholarly resources for the members to investigate this further?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

+Guto Rhys that continuum is however jumping from branch to branch of Celtic.

As far as I know, no one proposes that Lepontic speakers later came to Wales bringing exactly Lepontic with them - unlike the situation in Romance linguistics.

The antepenultimate rule became operational so late that syncopisations and weakened vowels (quaero > inquiro!) happened before it, due to initial stress. This can be found in etymological remarks in Der kleine Stowasser, and probably in some other Latin lexica too.

Exactly so. [OK, i:nsula is attested, he should not have given it as asterisk form.] And for all vowels. We may pronounce "mensa" with a short e, but it is really with a long e, as can be seen from Spanish reflex mesa. V > V:/_ns, _nf

Guto Rhys

+Hans-Georg LundahlThe continuum is not relevant to this discussion.

quaero > inquiro isn't syncope. It's the raising of the vowel.

What is needed to put some meat on this argument are some good analogies and references.

'Probably some other Latin lexica' is insufficient. This group does require sources that members can verify.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I know that quaero > inquiro isn't syncope.

It is however not so much RAISING as WEAKENING of the vowel. In positions after initial vowel, short ones were syncopated, unless protected by a consonant group, long ones or such protected by consonant group were weakened.

i: for ae, oe corresponds to Welsh y for a lot of vowels = weakening.

Product of a short vowel weakened was uniformly i. Except when syncope occurred, or when weakening product was u (earlier and) before labials or e before r.

For the moment Stowasser is the lexicon that comes to mind, I cannot name the other one I had less long offhand, but can look it up to tomorrow.

Langenscheid [Der kleine Langenscheid!] I also had, but that is not the one, it doesn't give etymological info. The one I had is not on amazon, it would seem, but I'll look again.

One can't use vowel raising as proxy for syncope. This misleads and confuses.

+Hans-Georg LundahlIf you haven't read a book please don't post it.

A reference is there to help members.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

If references to syncope are there in those I have read, they are a fortiori there in the others.

I was NOT using "raising" or rather weakening as proxy for syncope, I was saying initial accent had BOTH effects. The books I gave back it up, and the fact some may not access Stowasser but another justifies linking to them too.

If you had read the comments, you would also have seen I had given more than one example of precisely SYNCOPE.

Ambiceps sounds familiar? No, it is anceps.

[Should normally have **asterisked **ambiceps, but that would have deprived him of the moment of hesitation.]

Guto Rhys

Remember that, as noted above, /-s-/ would not survive into Neo-Brittonic.

It would be necessary to postulate *iniss- or *inist-.

I only see examples of syncope being noted after being pressed.

+Hans-Georg LundahlI'm not sure what 'mēnsa' has to do with this.Hans-Georg Lundahl

+Hans-Georg LundahlThe comments were read but the analogies would be better placed with the argument., as opposed to when pressed.

This helps members follow the argument.

+Hans-Georg LundahlSound-laws are just that - they are uniform.

Not the same thing as sound-changes.

Exceptions cannot be ignored. They generally require the formulation of a more detailed law or recourse to other explanations such as analogy.

+Hans-Georg LundahlYou HAVE to provide the sources for such comments.

As far as I'm aware there is still some debate regarding Venetic, but how confidently can such proposed migrations be dated to 1200 BCE?

Greek legends? They may be just that. But this still does not place Proto-Greek in the Alpine region.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Sound-laws are just that - they are uniform."

False idea.

Syncope has been a tendency in Latin both before and after codification of Classical Latin.

per + rego > pergo, syncope rather than just weakening to **perrigo.

Nevertheless, calidus, calidum remain in Classical Latin, unsyncopated, and only syncopate to Caldo between Latin and Italian/French.

"I only see examples of syncope being noted after being pressed."

I was presuming the knowledge of Latin etymology which I am used to among latinists.

[And also, after the decades since I read it, took some time recalling the examples.]

"I'm not sure what 'mēnsa' has to do with this."

I am very sorry I did not take time to copy each of the comments I answered. The basic point is that long first i in insula is automatic due to ns, the sound law (in this case not just a tendency!) is however not restricted to i, it involves all vowels : V > V:/ _ns, _nf. And the most famous proof of this (at least I consider it the most famous) is that "mensa" gives "mesa" and not **miesa, that "mensem" gives "més" and "mois", not **miés or **mié(s).

"You HAVE to provide the sources for such comments."

When pressed - or challenged.

"As far as I'm aware there is still some debate regarding Venetic, but how confidently can such proposed migrations be dated to 1200 BCE?"

That is one point.

"Greek legends? They may be just that."

I have the utmost confidence in legends - next to Catholic Theology or The Bible. Since Invasion of Heraclids contradicts nothing in the Bible, I am very confident it happened.

"The comments were read but the analogies would be better placed with the argument., as opposed to when pressed."

True enough, it would be better.

I cannot guarantee to be always on my best, and I can guarantee NOT to be so, when - as yesterday - I am pressed to respond real time. Heckled on more than one point at once.

And since you had the wrong idea of what accent Latin started with (probably well before being written or before being more written than Law of Ten Tablets), a parallel to syncope could illustrate the accent. Caedo but inci:do. In main syllable ae never becomes i:. After the stress, always. Why then incido? Well, because the stress pattern IN-kae-doo does not leave cae- as main stressed syllable. With an original stress pattern in-KAE-doo, the syllable would have remained as cae.

Hence, one would have dealt with I-ni-su-laa (originally long a in nominative, but not in vocative), and not with i-NI-su-laa. Hence syncope is possible.

Actually, when going so far back, even more probably:

inis- +l- +aa = inisla.

I-ni-sla > IN-sla > insula. Last stage being epenthesis of -u-. Not sure exactly when ns triggered prolongation of previous vowel, but before Classic Latin, at any rate.

[Answering posthumously to discussion the point about -ss- : a) Greek also needs an original -ss- between vowels, and in neesos the following vowel of -os is attested; b) *iniss- +l- +aa gives exactly same result as *inis- +l- +aa - namely inisla. Indeed, one could argue that a simple -s- would have been -z- and have disappeared, confer "aala" (wing) from *aksla, diminutive "axilla" (armpit)]

Guto Rhys

I have messaged you privately.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Noted.

Or did you? I don't see no message?

Oh, you deleted answers too? BY me? Well, that is not the kind of group admin I like to be in the group of.

[He deleted "Noted", and "Or did you? etc" and then also the long one preceding "I have messaged you privately".]

More on nesos

This is posthumous to the actual discussion. I have now already left the group.

1) νησος, like supposed necessary *iniss- really has geminated s, since Greek shares with Welsh the deletion of simple intervocalic s, unless maintained - Guto would insist "restored" - by analogy. It is really νησσος - though for the moment I lack the reference to back that up. A Classic Greek grammar including historic notes, from about anytime in 20th C and probably most of 19th C will inform of this rule, in the proper place about sound laws.

2) Guto Rhys insisted that neesos, even if originally with a vowel (which is problematic, since Greek generally keeps vowels that other languages loose, I gave erythros, orego as analogies against my original point of Greek loosing a vowel), or even if further West supplemented by one - for instance from eni- - could not be etymon, since iniisos would have yielded Ynis, not Ynys, due to second i being long (we agree, I presume, that ee would have become ii in proto-Celtic or Common Celtic : Latin re:x vs Celtic ri:x).

Here we need to ask : was there NO place among Celts where the ii could have been shortened, for instance due to initial accent? Do we know that all the way the ancestry of British branch has kept same accent system as Lepontic, so that we could guarantee neesos remaining with a long vowel and therefore giving Ynis rather than Ynys?

3) Other problem with nesos, someone brought up that Doric form would have been νασος - this could however have been a backformation, if Doric had lost the word and reborrowed it from an Ionic dialect. Since the dialects already had a correspondence ματηρ / μητηρ the νησος could have been borrowed as νασος.

Btw, my general theory of IE unity (as a Sprachbund) does not need fewer regular sound correspondences, but more of the ones we have regarded as backformations.

4) A proposed solution for short second i in inis, as per necessity for a short one before Ynys. Note that this solution presupposes that original form was not with alpha, but with long e, even for Greek.

a) ne:ssos is felt as insufficiently precise, and for full islands one adds eni- like this : *eni-ne:ssos.

c) from *inini:ssos you can go on to *inni:ssos by syncopation, to *ini:ssos by one haplology and to *inissos by another.

d) whether earlier Celtic form was *inissos or *inissi:s is immaterial to Ynys. Only **inissa: would have given **Enes instead, which we do not have.

And *inisos or *inisi:s would have become *inijos or *iniji:s - unless the -s- were maintained by some analogy, not necessarily within language, but outside, as with Irish, where internal s is not lost. That said, the other languages too argue for a double -ss-.

Bearing on General IE Linguistics

It seems inis and insula have just perhaps nesos, certainly not Au/ö (Insel, ijssel, island are loans from Latin/French), certainly not ostrow as etyma outside Italic and Celtic. This means that we don't have a common IE one. As with PENN and CÉANN - head in Welsh and Irish - one can reconstruct proto-Celtic, but there is no common IE etymon. And quite a few more like that.

Appendix

Lithuanian, Latvian sala

Polish wyspa

Russian остров, as Bulgarian, while Croatian has for Ostrvo the synonyms otoka (main word) and ada. Slovene has just otok.

Slovak has ostrov and a few more, two phrases rather than simple nouns. Czech, ostrov. Serbian острво and ада.

God certainly knows when and how much He can let you struggle, and you struggle on and God is content with that.

But if certain men try to pastor someone on the supposition he needs some roughage, needs some struggle etc. either God should not hear that, or if He does, it can be to punish the man for having such pastors or to punish them for being bad pastors, since such things can push a man beyond struggling for God's glory and own salvation.

A comparison : God could make a deal with Satan and say "yes, I allow you to torture Job exactly SO much", and God could do it, because He knew Job inside out. But if Church of God makes a similar deal with Synagogue of Satan (or Church of Satan, now that exists), the Church may be meddling with things beyond her ken, since Church men are not God and do not know souls inside out.

In other words, the quote is a nice encouragement as long as not taken as a substitute for actions which would alleviate a bad situation.

II

Francis Dominic

When God will not change your circumstances, you may ought to assume he is trying to change you.

Hans Georg Lundahl

UNLESS I have a reason to believe certain people are willing to keep me in circumstances by intrigues so as to force on me what they think I should change.

Francis Dominic

Hans-Georg Lundahl I do not understand what your saying has to do with the quote I posted.

Hans Georg Lundahl

Quote from whom?

For instance, is there a Church Father or a Church Doctor you quoted? The other quote seems like St Francis of Sales, somewhere in Introduction to the Devout Life.

But this one, I do not know.

There ARE circumstances in which men conspire about someone's welfare and God allows it for a time.

Obviously, if a certain misfortune is SIMPLY sent by God and no one else, I can take it as one type of lesson from God, like changing sth.

But if a misfortune is sent by certain men conspiring and God sends in the sense of ALLOWING it for a time, perhaps God is rather expecting me to endure.

Francis Dominic

Hans-Georg Lundahl It is my quote in keeping within the guidelines of Church Teaching.

Hans Georg Lundahl

Possible, but you have not stated from whom.

III

Francis Dominic

Satan loves to discourage God's people and he especially enjoys using God's people to discourage other of God's people.

Hans Georg Lundahl

I think a certain series of links were deleted?

[I had previously written I felt discouraged by non-printing of my booklet Can we Reasonably Trust the Gospels? - YES! to which I gave links.]

The same booklet I linked to was sent to Pope Michael - did he find anything heretical in it?

[No response - and the missive was posted months ago AND backed up by mails both on FB and on my mail account. Hah, now he did respond:]

Francis Dominic

Honestly he has not had a chance to read them. He has other pressing matters including some things for the press that is ahead of your booklet. He has not forgotten about it.

Hans Georg Lundahl

Ah, good.

Thank you!

However, it is unreasonable that a writer should remain poor while unpublished because the proper persons for nihil obstat, imprimi potest and imprimatur lack the time to see it through.

Does this mean I am dispensed from the usual duty of previous submission?

Interesting. Thanks for the analysis. I was generalizing things for a popular audience and you are trying to hold my feet to the fire in ways more specific than I intended to convey. Next time I will try and craft my words more carefully. In the meantime, however, men walking on the moon, the eruption of MT St Helens, etc., are not truly historical science. Yes, they occurred in the past, but they also occurred in the age of videography and instrumentation. We also have living witnesses, and have recorded the testimonies of those witnesses. Thus, I would define "historical science" with Aquinas' "contingents that are far off, in the past or hidden".

You are also correct that I blended flat earth with geocentrism. That was a gloss on my part an d I should have caught it. However, I at least answered the flat earth part conclusively.

And as far as the Van Allen Radiation Belts are concerned, yes, they are dangerous to human life but, no, they do not preclude people inside a metallic space capsule from traveling though them. We can and have measured radiation exposure in such scenarios and have determined that the presence of the VARB is not a barrier to space exploration.

You know, we cannot post a link to your blog, but some of the material would be appropriate for the article comment section on creation.com

To which

I gave a double answer, A and B. I will start with B, which got not response, and then go on to A, where a further exchange was made.

Hans-Georg Lundahl, B

"Yes, they occurred in the past, but they also occurred in the age of videography and instrumentation."

For Mount Saint Helen's, I'd agree insofar as so many witnesses independent of each other and of any central organism is there.

For Moon landing, I do not agree, since all witnesses to them actually being on moon depended on NASA and were few and videography could have been faked.

Living witnesses are still witness knowledge, not scientific knowledge. And witnesses dead or alive, it also depends on how many and independent they are.

"And as far as the Van Allen Radiation Belts are concerned, yes, they are dangerous to human life but, no, they do not preclude people inside a metallic space capsule from traveling though them. We can and have measured radiation exposure in such scenarios and have determined that the presence of the VARB is not a barrier to space exploration."

Thank you very much, I'd appreciate a link on that matter. And my blog has no policy barring me from posting it. [It was not given.]

Hans-Georg Lundahl, A

I don't know why.

You have very certainly in the past posted links to sites outside your own.

Robert Carter

Only with a "Courtesy Warning" to our customers (i.e., no direct links), and only for sites that are accepted as a community standard. Since we cannot guarantee the content of personal blogs they are certainly not going to be linked to.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You cannot guarantee the content of ANY site except your own.

ANY site you actually are linking to has exactly the same problem.

Plus you have already deviated from that policy by linking to the blog of my rival Sungenis.

Plus with my creationist blog up for so long, you can certainly by now know its typical content, so you could "guarantee" it in the sense required - you would obviously be able to first state your reservations against the policy of my blog.

Apart from being YEC, it is LXX-based rather than Ussher based in chronology, it is Catholic rather than Protestant, it is Geocentric. THAT much you can guarantee.

Precisely as there were things you could guarantee with the blog GWW or GWWTCWR. Or whatever acronym Sungenis uses for his blog Galileo Was Wrong, the Church Was Right. To which you effectively linked.

You cannot "guarantee" me being right, but since you are not the magisterium of the Catholic Church, you are not in such a position whichever blog you link to.

You cannot guarantee me being "scientific", since natural sciences are very much not my primary study, rather a sideshow. But you can guarantee my not claiming to be a scientist. You can go through the 200 and more articles and see that nowhere ever did I claim to be a natural scientist. I claim to be a philosopher of the subject (note my reference to Theory of Knowledge = epistemology) and also, which is independently true, an amateur expert.

Now, you have not linked to, but quoted one Chesterton who was very certainly NOT a natural scientist and hardly even an amateur expert (though I am not so sure about that), but who was writing as a philosopher and identifying the problem of irreducible complexity well before I think any creation scientists were around doing so. Except perhaps some of the pre-Darwinians old guard, like Agassiz.

Robert Carter

"Catholic rather than Protestant, it is Geocentric. THAT much you can guarantee." I knew none of this, but it is also irrelevant. Our rules are stated and clear. BTW, we wrestled long and hard about even using Sungenes' [sic] name, let alone putting up a link (text only) to his material, knowing how the geocentrists typically act, and oh look, here you are being unreasonable. Thank you for proving our point. No, you will certainly not get a live link.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Our rules are stated and clear."

As far as I know, that rule is as yet not the eleventh commandment. It is a rule by which you think you are usually accomplishing sth good. And if I think you are in this case not doing so, perhaps you should question the application - or the rule.

"BTW, we wrestled long and hard about even using Sungenes' [sic] name, let alone putting up a link (text only) to his material,"

I bet the fact he already had publicity without you helped the decision.

"knowing how the geocentrists typically act,"

Namely?

"and oh look, here you are being unreasonable."

About what?

"Thank you for proving our point."

About what?

"No, you will certainly not get a live link."

You have already said that, even so you can thank me having another policy than you for some of your readers. I have at least helped you make some money (donation and indirectly buying of your printed material), you are not very returning about the favour.

"I knew none of this,"

Oh, you are NOT the one who read Dixit Aquinas, nor one of the four who read my comment on your statement of faith?

Or you are lying about not knowing previously to my mentioning it?

Or you meant "knew" other than "knew before I told you," namely "knew before I looked"?

Those are basically the alternatives. You know, my visitor stats are usable. I took those for "last 24 hours".

After which, I added a link to a picture of me showing my cardboard, as photographed a morning as a homeless man (still am such) and then mentioned part of the reason is people not linking.

Here are some statistics, by the way.

Last 24 hours, verified 2.XI.2016, before adding the words about stats on his wall.

XII ex aequo 1 Can we get this straight? I never said I was athei...
10 Oct 2014
http://linkabove

& 1 Dixit Aquinas
22 Jul 2016
http://linkabove

Note how many more visitors I have in US than elsewhere, note how after one highlighted post with many visitors, a few less so, there is one day 4 page views on many consecutive posts and next day 5 page views on many consecutive posts and on top of that most links are the same for both days./HGL